Opinion
Case No.: 19-CV-927-CAB-JLB
05-20-2019
TIMOTHY MAPP, Plaintiff, v. SAN DIEGO COUNTY Defendant.
ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
[Doc. No. 2]
Plaintiff, a nonprisoner proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against San Diego County that is effectively an appeal of state or county-level administrative decisions concerning the amount of child support withheld from his unemployment and disability insurance payments.. Plaintiff also filed an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). Generally, all parties instituting a civil action in this court must pay a filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); CivLR 4.5(a). However, the court may authorize a party to proceed without paying the fee if that party submits an affidavit demonstrating an inability to pay. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). "An affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life." Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). "[A] plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty." Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Here, Plaintiff's papers assert that he is currently receiving disability payments of $2,944.00 per month and will continue to receive such payments until he is cleared to return to work following heart surgery. He also owns a car valued at $800.00. Meanwhile, his total monthly expenses are only $1,542.00. Accordingly, the payment of the filing fee in this case would not prevent Plaintiff from being "able to provide himself and dependents with the necessities of life." See Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948) (internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP is therefore DENIED.
Plaintiff shall have until June 10 , 2019 to pay the requisite filing fee to maintain this action. If the filing fee is not paid by this date, the Clerk of Court shall close this case without further order from the Court.
Plaintiff should be aware that even if he does pay the filing fee, his case may be subject to dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, under which "a party losing in state court is barred from seeking what in substance would be appellate review of the state judgment in a United States District Court based on the losing party's claim that the state judgment itself violates the loser's federal rights." Johnson v. DeGrandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1005-06 (1994) (citing District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983), and Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923)); see also Rucker v. County of Santa Clara, State of California, No. C02-5981 JSW, 2003 WL 21440151 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 17, 2003) (dismissing complaint seeking review of garnishment of disability benefit payments for child support based on Rooker-Feldman doctrine). Alternatively, to the extent Plaintiff has not exhausted his claims concerning the propriety of the garnishment in California state court, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the complaint does not state a federal question, and the parties are not diverse.
It is SO ORDERED. Dated: May 20, 2019
/s/_________
Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo
United States District Judge